Some Haywood County Republicans are unhappy with party leader Pat Carr and have initiated proceedings to remove her from office, an act statewide party officials say is extremely rare.

Carr was elected to a two-year term in 2013, and apparently riled a faction of the party during the March 2014 party convention, according to emails circulated within GOP leadership circles. At the convention, a resolution was presented to shrink the size of the executive committee. Though the resolution was withdrawn before it was even voted on, it seemingly sparked a backlash against Carr.

A group representing a third of the party’s 27-member executive committee called the Monday night meeting held at Duvall’s Restaurant in Waynesville for the purpose of censuring or removing officers or elected officials where applicable, according to the meeting notice published in The Mountaineer on March 26.

Emails sent among party members made it clear Carr was the target.

About two dozen individuals showed up at the meeting, though only 15 or so were voting members of the executive committee. From the brief discussion the media was allowed to witness, it appeared there were executive party members on both sides of the issue. There were at least 15 members of the party's governing board who didn't answer the roll call, indicating their absence at the meeting.

Despite the fact the meeting was called by her opposition, Carr cited party organization rules stating she was the chairman and was to preside at all meetings until she handed the gavel over to someone else. Monroe Miller, the vice-chairman of the Allens Creek precinct, likewise attempted to take charge of the meeting, creating chaotic discussions at times.

It took about 45 minutes for the group to conduct roll call and consider multiple motions that excluded the press. That ultimately required suspending party organization rules because those at the meeting wanted to allow Republicans not on the party's executive committee to stay, but also exclude two Republican members of the press attending the meeting — Mountaineer Publisher Jonathan Key and Becky Johnson, a Smoky Mountain News reporter who changed her party affiliation that morning to cover the meeting.

When the group adjourned about an hour later, few discussed what had occurred.

Carr confirmed she had turned the meeting over to Craig Collins, an attorney from Gastonia who serves as the GOP chairman of the 10th Congressional District. Collins said he was attending the meeting at the request of the N.C. GOP Party Chairman Claude Pope and its executive director, Todd Poole.

Lisa Womack, chairwoman of the Allens Creek precinct, commended Collins for the job he did.

“Once he took over, it took on a new tone,” she said.

Kenneth Henson, chairman of the Center Pigeon precinct, said his concern in calling the meeting was to ensure everyone had a vote.

“If it was up to me, the executive committee would be twice as big as it is,” he said.

Carr said once she formally receives the charges against her, the next step is for another meeting to be called where she will be allowed to present a defense. At that point, it will require a two-thirds vote of the executive committee — 18 members — to remove her from office.

Beyond that, none in the room would go into specifics about the issues behind the attempt to remove Carr, who the group would like to have as the new chairman or what direction they would rather see the party move in.

“It’s a family quarrel,” said Collins. “We're just keeping it in house.”

Carr seemed puzzled by the situation.

“I’ve wondered for a long time what their motives are. When there is a call to volunteer, they don’t volunteer,” she said of those instigating the meeting Monday.

As for the change in the party’s plan of organization that seemingly riled some of the members, Carr said anyone was entitled to present a proposal at the convention.

Collins said an issue discussed in the meeting included a plan for moving forward.

“Whatever happens, we need to be unified coming out of this,” he said.

Both Collins and Poole, who were interviewed last week, said the process set forth in the party’s plan of organization to remove a party official is seldom used.

“It rarely happens,” Collins said.

Who called the meeting

The 10 individuals listed as calling the special meeting of the executive committee to consider removing Carr as chairman included the following.

• Eddie Cabe, precinct chairman of Beaverdam 1, who has written numerous emails castigating Carr, particularly for her alleged association with the March resolution altering the party's plan of organization;

• Greg Burrell, the Beaverdam 5/6 precinct chairman. Burrell said he isn't sure who he would rather see as party chairman, but said he is tired of liberals running the country. "It's Republicans, too, allowing things to happen as they are. It takes true leadership to bring people together." Burrell said the property taxes he pays to the county have gone up three times since the recession, and it is time those running the government learn "they work for us. We're not working for them."

• Tomile Cure, the Hazelwood precinct chairman;

• Jonnie Cure, the the Waynesville 1 precinct chairman. In an email, Cure questioned the March resolution that would have returned the party's governing committee to the way it was a year ago before every precinct chairman in the county was added to the executive committee. Cure also placed and paid for the advertisement in The Mountaineer for the special-called meeting.

• Lisa Womak, chairman of the Allens Creek precinct;

• Ken Henson, chairman of the Center Pigeon precinct;

• Eleanor Worley, chairman of the Beaverdam 2 precinct, did not attend the Monday night meeting but said Tuesday, "They called me, and from what I understand, things aren't going that well with her (Carr). I haven't been to that many meetings." Worley said she would have to check into what was going on before voting on whether Carr should be removed from office.

• Mark Zaffrann, chairman of the center Waynesville precinct;

• Andrew Jackson, who served briefly as party chairman several years back and is the current chairman of the Crabtree precinct.

In a republic "all persons" choose their elected representatives while retaining their civil rights.

Seems these "republicans" have lost their way.

C.Z.

Posted by: Allen Alsbrooks | Apr 13, 2014 11:49

These clowns have lost more than just their way.

I started going to meetings hoping to use the experience as a way to work on improving the community. I was totally disappointed after my third meeting. The meetings verged on the precipice of being Christian pep rallies. My being the only Jewish-American in the room this made the meetings almost unbearable.

There are too many egos who think they are the only voice and as typical think the rules don't apply to them.

I personally believe having each precinct chair on the executive committee is just overkill. It's difficult enough to get 7 or 8 to agree on much. It's virtually impossible to get 28-30 to a consensus. It becomes an egofest at best.

Posted by: Allen Alsbrooks | Apr 13, 2014 11:51

And some of them are jus plain bully's and are acting like spoiled brats when they don't get their way.

Posted by: Scott Lilly | Apr 14, 2014 08:28

I'd like to know what "their way" is. I don't see any organized message from the formal Republican group. I don't see any educating or convincing communications about why someone might want to be a Republican. I don't see the "Republican side of things" well-described in local newspapers. I didn't see much attendance in the Republican event in Canton last month. If I had one suggestion, it would be to focus more on conservative ideas and how to influence the community towards those ideas. It's dysfunctional church councils and homeowners associations where people are more interested in themselves than the mission. Don't be that kind of club.

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Apr 14, 2014 10:59

If their recent actions are any indication, one faction at least, is not representative of what OUR Founders defined as a republic. Instead show themselves as "conservatives", indeed.

C.Z.

Posted by: Scott Lilly | Apr 14, 2014 12:08

So many lost opportunities:

1) Republicans advocate LIMITED government as a republic system of government is defined as being limited by a constitution -- not whatever people think their problem is that an all-powerful "government system" will fix for them. (Using "someone else's" money to do it.)

2) One way to force government to be limited is to limit its funding. Cutting taxes is a way to make government get back to basics in what it SHOULD be doing -- not what it CAN be doing. But that backfires when there is no balanced budget and they whip out the credit card to increase debt limits.

3) If you give up on limited government and just go with democracy, then we're all at the mercy of salesmen in politics. If someone can say, just vote to increase taxes and we'll owe you something. That never ends well nor does it have any limits.

4) All men are created equal. It's not government's job to make all men equal. There is a very large chasm between those two statements. One that should have conservative representation.

5) Social systems and charity that provides a hand-up instead of hand-outs are better forms of assistance. This is a tenant of "personal responsibility" that Republicans ought to explain.

Why is it that local Republicans do not communicate and represent these 5 examples in local issues? Where are their voices and views published? How can an argument be made with silence? Why are we talking about who's going to chair a meeting rather than why the group exists in the first place?

It is one thing to fail to understand OUR Founding Principles. It is another to think the rest of US do also.

The number one job of OUR Govt. is to equally protect "All persons" from oppression of tyranny whereby power/wealth collects in too few hands, while attending to the "General Wellfare" of US. Taxes assessed on the ability to pay in proportion to income gained, inheritance even more so, etc and Social programs long recognized as obligations, are a means to achieve the intent of OUR Founders.

"Conscience" may not be interfered with. As a republic "All persons" are held accountable as to whatever harm they cause to another person by that person using the common law(7th Amendment). Religion was separated from the state and has nothing to do with OUR laws.

bushishito inherited a surplus. By giving 1.3 trillion dollars away, he spent OUR assets with no requirements as to how it was to be used, resulting in much waste. he instituted a pill program without paying for it. he fought two wars without paying for them. But yet who gets the blame? Why the Obomanator, of course.

Every project should be paid for in the get go. Taxes should be raised at that time to pay for the project. Not long after the money has been borrowed and spent leaving someone else holding the bag allowing ingrates and the ill-informed to blame the person holding the bag for their predasessors failures.

There was little "conservative representation" in the Founding. Except that they fought for or otherwise supported King George. There are a plethora of court cases exposing the various attempts to force "conservative representation" on US. Few have been successful.

Liberty as opposed to conservatism.

That no God has ever interfered in the lives of man who inherent their rights from their creator and therefore are inalienable and not subject to govt. control, is the Founding Principle of a "limited government".

That OUR rights begin at birth whereby the "Social contract begins whereby We agree to be represented by a representative govt. while retaining OUR civil rights is apparently lost on "republicans".

C.Z.

Posted by: Allen Alsbrooks | Apr 15, 2014 12:55

It is not the authority of OUR government to reach into our pockets and "redistribute wealth."

We do agree OUR government should protect each citizen from oppression from not only outside of our borders but within.

Personal liberty should never be infringed upon except when our sovereignty is at risk.

Personal responsibility should never be usurped by government intrusion.

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Apr 15, 2014 20:14

Just as the First Amendment results in the separation of the church from the state, equal protection from oppression of too much wealth/power in too few hands requires or otherwise results in the redistribution of wealth.

Taxes, by their very nature, redistribute wealth. Consumption taxes while generally flat, result in those with a greater ability to buy, paying more. Taxes applied in proportion to income generated take into account the nature that people earn in proportion to their abilities. Inheritance should be much higher to prevent "inherit bondsmen" who inherit large wealth/power while doing little to generate it.

"trickle-down" results in the least of US supporting the better-off in the hopes of getting a job. It is robin hood in reverse, as "rayguns" intended. Same with flat income taxes.

Respectfully,

C.Z.

Posted by: Grass Roots WNC | Apr 17, 2014 01:38

Robin Hood stole from the Government (in the story)... He stole from the King and the sheriff... (not from the rich)... surprised?

He gave it back to the TAXPAYERS ... because of the unfair, high taxes levied on the workers and producers by the king and enforced by the sheriff.

Was Robin Hood a Republican?

Freedom allows us to follow our dream and become successful - to rise up the economic ladder by our own efforts. But we must be left alone to climb up... not taxed and regulated to death.

Just ask Evergreen how that EPA regulation is working for them! Will the be regulated and taxed to death?

Posted by: Scott Lilly | Apr 17, 2014 06:10

Mr. Zimmerman, your logic is ambiguous. Consumption taxes allow those that buy more to pay more -- AT THE SAME FLAT/FAIR RATE AS EVERYONE. You buy a $10,000 piece of jewelry for your wife, you'll pay 7% or $700 in sales tax. You buy a $100 piece of jewelry for your wife, you'll also pay 7% for a whopping total of $7. Yes, the consumption tax makes everyone pay their "fair share".

How come for income tax you change your logic? Someone earning $100,000 will have about 34% in income taxes withheld from their paycheck plus their employer has to directly pay some other employment taxes on behalf of the employee. That totals about $40,000 in taxes paid. Someone earning $20,000 only will have about 22% withheld from their paycheck for a total of about $5,000. Why can't everyone earning income pay their "fair share" as a flat tax like the consumption tax? You earn a dollar, you pay 20% in taxes. You earn another dollar, you pay the same 20% in taxes. Every dollar you earn = 20% paid in taxes. The more dollars you earn, the more money 20% in taxes will total. It makes no sense to be penalized progressively as you realize more success measured in income. That's nothing more than class envy and Democrats use "majority rules" to provide a kickback to the un-rich public in exchange for their vote. Vote for Democrats and we'll take from the rich and give things to you poor. If "the rich" is defined as those who own and operate non-compliant boilers, so be it. Those nasty business paying corporate taxes don't deserve their money to create jobs now, do they? The trickle-down effect that Evergreen has on the economy apparently is so valuable that your dear Democrat friends will give lots of taxpayer money to them so they can keep trickling on the community.

Your income tax logic is subjective and certainly not "fair". The limits and rates are entirely up to someone's random decision. Why not tax someone earning $100,000 at 80%? Who's to say 34% is the right number? Why not have someone earning $20,000 pay 1% income tax? Who gets to decide who is considered "rich" and who is considered "poor"? Tell me what's "fair" about that? Someone earning $100,000 living in Manhattan would be very different from someone earning $100,000 living in Waynesville. Yet the federal government decides those earners are considered the same. A flat income tax would be the most fair system of taxation possible and best of all, would not discriminate against "the rich" -- however that's defined these days.

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Apr 17, 2014 10:43

Flat income tax does not take into consideration that as each acquire income as to their abilities so too must they pay to support Liberty. "Equal protection of the laws" to prevent too much wealth/power accumulating in too few hands requires a progressive income tax. Inheritance tax in order to prevent "inherent bondsmen" must be even more restrictive. Otherwise We will return to the days of serfs and masters.

Non-consumption taxes are a bill We are all responsible to pay. Should the least of US be saddled with the same amount as those well-off?

C.Z.

Posted by: Scott Lilly | Apr 17, 2014 11:59

"Flat income tax does not take into consideration that as each acquire income as to their abilities so too must they pay to support Liberty." -- That's a Democrat opinion you'll find often represented on MSNBC. That's not a Republican/Libertarian opinion. You're welcome to your opinion.

"Should the least of US be saddled with the same amount as those well-off?" -- As far as percentage, yes, that would be a good proposal. Someone earning $100,000/year would pay 5 times the amount of tax than someone earning $20,000/year using a flat tax structure. Those high-earners will most certainly pay "more" taxes than low-earners. (And while you're at it, include elimination of all income tax loopholes with any flat-tax proposal.)

Did you know that the top 1% of those that earn income pay 35% of the federal income taxes? I'd say they pay much more than their "fair share". MORE THAN HALF of all income taxes are paid by the top 5%. That means the entire 95% of the rest of the people pay less than half of the income taxes! And lowest 50% -- they pay only 3% of all the income tax. Where is the "equal protection" here?!?!

I support the elimination of all tax schemes and instead replace them with a flat tax levied against earnings of all citizens. The only people against that proposal seem to be the beneficiaries of the current schemes and loopholes.

As many other "working"citizens I recently filed a tax return. My filing included 18 printed pages of forms and schedules. I spent 20 hours (approx) completing and reviewing my tax return prior to putting them in the mail. This time does not include time spent with record keeping or gathering the data needed to prepare myself to complete my return.

Under a fair or flat tax levy there would not be ant tax schemes or loopholes. The filing of the annual reporting could be accomplished with a single page form. But that is too easy.

A "consumption tax" would be even easier and fair but that will never happen as long as the 16th Amendment exists.

Posted by: Scott Lilly | Apr 17, 2014 13:43

An "ant tax"?!? Oh my! I need to get out in the yard to kill ants. :-)

Posted by: Allen Alsbrooks | Apr 17, 2014 15:49

Ugghhh. I post using my iPad. I guess I should turm off the autocorrect mad proofread netter. LOL

"ant" = any

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Apr 17, 2014 16:17

"Equal protection" requires just that, equal protection. Equal protection from the tyranny of too much wealth/power accumulating in too few hands requires a constant leveling of the playing field resulting in those making more paying a larger share.

Personally, as I proposed previously, I would have a tax rate starting at the cost of living as 0 and going to$1,000,000.00 paying 30%.

The reason the top 5% are paying about half of all taxes is because they are paying too little to begin with. When income is better regulated more will pay in.

C.Z.

Posted by: Scott Lilly | Apr 17, 2014 18:38

You know, tithing is 10% to God no matter how much you earn. If progressive taxation was such a great idea, I'm sure the Bible would have rate schedules in an appendix. :-)

Mr. Zimmerman cannot make declarations about what tax rates ought to be. Who says $1,000,000 is the right number? And why is 30% the right rate? If we can just pick people to arbitrarily pick numbers, then I'm going to take that job and it will be what I say. Eventually, you get 26 volumes of tax code and necessitate a public accountant to do income taxes! Oh, wait. Never mind.

I like the idea of an ANT tax anyway. Tax the heck out of them. The more you tax something, the less of it there is. I've been paying for ant poison when all we needed was a tax on those little bugs. Kind of like people who stay in hotels. Tax them more and what do you get? (See I can keep it up!)

Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Apr 17, 2014 20:00

I would eliminate all deductions except direct expenses.

It would be very simple to figure your taxes. Just go to your income after expenses go straight up to find percentage owed. Very simple.

If the angle of the line needs to adjusted it can be. But it should remain a straight line.

Flat income taxes enable the well-off to use gold-leafed toilet paper while the least off are stuck with leaves and sticks.